burrows_wheeler

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no performance characteristics, no error behavior for invalid input, no note on whether inverse mode requires a valid BWT string. It only repeats the forward/inverse duality that the schema already encodes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single compact sentence with the core operation front-loaded and no filler. It's efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than truly concise for a tool with mode-dependent behavior.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a self-contained algorithm tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, the inverse mode's dependence on a valid BWT string plus original_index is never explained, leaving a real gap given the absence of annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'text', 'inverse', and 'original_index' with meaning. The description's only contribution is confirming the two modes; it adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Compute') and resource ('Burrows-Wheeler Transform'), and adds that it works in forward or inverse mode. This is clear enough to distinguish it from neighboring string algorithms like suffix_array_build or suffix_tree, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many other string/sequence algorithm tools in the sibling list, nor any prerequisite or context for use. The forward/inverse split is mentioned but framed as capability, not as usage selection criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.